remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Renewable Energy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2023 In Re: 28786345 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor and researcher, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, and the record supports that determination. However, the Director 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The Director's decision 
concluded that "substantial merit and national importance is met." However, the decision does not 
sufficiently explain the basis for this determination. 
The Petitioner stated that she intends to work in the United States as an assistant professor and 
researcher in the field ofrenewable energy. Noting the potential for power failures as a result of aging 
transmission lines, she indicated that she intends "to address and find solutions to these issues," and 
stated that she is "engaged in search of farther advancement in the field of clean renewable energy and 
microgrids which could serve the national interest of the United States of America.... " The Petitioner 
provided copies of her academic credentials, personal statements, letters of recommendation, and 
articles and reports pertaining to microgrid and renewable energy research in support of her eligibility 
under the first prong. 
The Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently demonstrates 
the endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 2 In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director should 
focus on what the Petitioner will be doing rather than the specific occupation. An endeavor having 
significant potential on the broader implications for a field or region generally may rise to the level of 
having national importance for the purpose of establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. 3 
The Director should review the record to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated her 
proposed endeavor has significant potential on the broader impact in the field. 
If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet the substantial merit or 
national importance requirements of Dhanasar 's first prong, the decision should discuss the 
insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 See id. 
2 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
In the second prong, the focus shifts to the petitioner and their positioning to advance their proposed 
endeavor, and we look at several factors in making this determination. We consider factors including, 
but not limited to: their education, skills, 
knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
For Dhanasar 's second prong, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner had "gained skills 
and experiences in her field of endeavor," the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. However, the decision did not sufficiently explain the 
basis for this determination. The decision does not describe the evidence reviewed by the Director to 
make the determination, nor does the decision analyze any evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The 
decision states: "After consideration of the following non-exhaustive list of factors, among others, the 
record is insufficient to establish that the [Petitioner] is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor." The Director, however, did not list the factors to which they referred, and simply 
concluded in the next sentence that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she submitted abundant evidence to demonstrate that she is well 
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner reiterates her qualifications and 
commitment to advance her endeavor, and points specifically to evidence including her curriculum 
vitae, academic record, employment history, research projects, certifications, research grants, 
recognition for achievements, and memberships. The Petitioner farther highlights letters of 
recommendation and her citation history, and concludes that all of this evidence is sufficient to satisfy 
this prong. The Director, however, did not discuss or acknowledge any of this evidence or explain 
why such evidence was insufficient. 
Collectively considering the evidence submitted prior to the Director's decision, we find that the 
Petitioner's evidence was not given due consideration. An officer must folly explain the reasons for 
denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to 
allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter 
ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denial 
to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). The 
Director's decision did not adequately address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response 
to the request for evidence in support of the second prong. The Director should analyze the specific 
content of the record to determine if the Petitioner's evidence renders her well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation does not meet 
Dhanasar 's second prong, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and 
adequately explain the reasons for ineligibility. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in 
performing the third prong's balancing analysis and concluded that the Petitioner "has not established 
that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, 
and thus of a labor certification." However, the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in 
3 
balancing those considerations or address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong. 
Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar 's third prong, the Director's 
determination for this prong was in error. If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's documentation 
does not meet this prong, the decision should address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and 
explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, we are remanding the petition to the Director to determine if the 
Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver and to enter a new decision. The 
Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. As such, 
we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4